38.6c New Delhi, India, Saturday, November 08, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

[BENAZEER HEENA CASE] Request For Urgent Listing Of Talaq-E-Hasan Matter Sent To CJI Ramanas Court Read Letter

By LawStreet News Network      09 May, 2022 11:45 AM      0 Comments
BENAZEER HEENA CASE Talaq E Hasan Supreme Court

Benazeer Heena, a Muslim woman journalist moved the Supreme Court with a plea challenging the practice of Talaq-e-Hasan, by which a Muslim man can divorce his wife by saying the word "talaq" once a month, for three months [Benazeer Heena v. Union of India & Ors]. 

A letter seeking urgent listing of plea challenging Talaq-e-Hasan has been sent to Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramanas Court. 

The letter states that Talaq-e-Hasan is a unilateral extra judicial form of Talaq and is similar to Talaq-e-Biddat. It can also be given through SMS, Email, Phone and by Post and the only difference is that it is given in three different instalments of 30 days.

In this case, the petitioners husband has sent her the first instalment of Talaq-e-Hasan through speed post on 19.04.2022. Therefore, he will send second letter on 19th May and third and final letter of Talaq-e-Hasan on 19th June. 

Thus, Adv. Ashwani Dubey, AOR, has requested the CJI Court to list the matter urgently and that the practice of unilateral Talaq-e-Hasan be stayed otherwise petitioners divorce will be final when Courts open in July.

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by journalist Benazeer Heena, seeks a declaration that the practice of Talaq-e-Hasan is unconstitutional as it is irrational, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.

The PIL also seeks guidelines on a gender and religion neutral procedure and grounds for divorce.

The petitioner's husband had allegedly divorced her by sending a Talaq-e-Hasan notice through a lawyer, after her family refused to pay dowry, even as her in-laws were harassing her for the same.

While pointing out several instances of being mistreated and beaten at the hands of the husband and his family, the petitioner stated that she had even submitted a complaint to the Delhi Commission for Women and lodged a First Information Report (FIR). However, the police allegedly told her that the practice is permissible under Sharia law.

Terming the practice as "Unilateral Extra-Judicial Talaq", the plea states that banning it is the need of the hour, as it is not harmonious with human rights and equality and is not necessary in the Islamic faith.

Many Islamic nations have restricted such practice, while it continues to vex the Indian society in general and Muslim women like the Petitioner in particular. It is submitted that the practice also wreaks havoc to lives of many women and their children, especially those belonging to the weaker economic sections of the society," the plea stated.

It is contended that the practice is misused and since only men can exercise the same, it is discriminatory as well.

Arguing that the legislature can amend and repeal laws in matters governed by personal laws till Independence, it is submitted,

 



"The Constitution neither grants any absolute protection to the personal law of any community that is arbitrary or unjust, nor exempts personal laws from the jurisdiction of the Legislature or the Judiciary."

The freedom of conscience, profession, practice and propagation of religion as guaranteed by Article 25, is not absolute, the petitioner further argued.

On these, among other grounds, the petitioner has sought the following prayers:

Direct and declare the practice of Talaq-E-Hasan and all other forms of unilateral extra-judicial talaq is void and unconstitutional for being arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14, 15, 21, 25;

direct and declare Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 is void and unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, in so far as it validates the practice of Talaq-E-Hasan and other forms of unilateral extra-judicial talaq;

Direct and declare the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, is void and unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 21, 25 in so far as it fails to secure for Muslim women the protection from Talaq-E-Hasan and other forms of unilateral extra-judicial talaq;

Direct Centre to frame guideline for Gender Neutral Religion Neutral Uniform Grounds of Divorce & Uniform Procedure of Divorce for all.

 

Read Letter

Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

arrest-and-remand-illegal-if-written-grounds-not-provided-two-hours-before-production-sc
Trending Judiciary
Arrest and Remand Illegal if Written Grounds Not Provided Two Hours Before Production: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules arrests and remands illegal if written grounds aren’t furnished at least two hours before the accused’s production before a Magistrate.

07 November, 2025 04:20 PM
magistrates-power-to-order-probe-under-section-156-3-crpc-cannot-be-invalidated-for-mere-technical-errors-sc
Trending Judiciary
Magistrate’s Power to Order Probe Under Section 156(3) CrPC Cannot Be Invalidated for Mere Technical Errors: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that a Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) CrPC cannot be nullified for minor technical or linguistic errors if offences are made out.

07 November, 2025 05:05 PM

TOP STORIES

no-law-student-shall-be-barred-from-exams-or-academic-progression-due-to-attendane-shortage-delhi-hc
Trending Judiciary
No Law Student Shall Be Barred From Exams Or Academic Progression Due To Attendane Shortage: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

Delhi HC rules no law student can be barred from exams or academic progress for low attendance; directs BCI to rethink attendance norms and strengthen grievance systems.

03 November, 2025 04:03 PM
mere-refusal-to-marry-does-not-constitute-instigation-under-section-306-ipc-supreme-court
Trending Judiciary
Mere Refusal To Marry Does Not Constitute Instigation Under Section 306 IPC: Supreme Court [Read Order]

Mere refusal to marry does not amount to instigation under Section 306 IPC, rules Supreme Court, quashing FIR and holding no abetment in emotional distress cases.

03 November, 2025 04:15 PM
government-cannot-unilaterally-expand-labour-dispute-scope-without-workers-demand-himachal-pradesh-hc
Trending Judiciary
Government cannot unilaterally expand labour dispute scope without workers’ demand: Himachal Pradesh HC [Read Order]

Government cannot suo motu expand labour dispute scope without workers’ demand, rules Himachal Pradesh High Court, holding termination issues need separate notice.

03 November, 2025 04:21 PM
child-welfare-committee-cannot-direct-police-to-register-fir-allahabad-hc
Trending Judiciary
Child Welfare Committee Cannot Direct Police to Register FIR: Allahabad HC [Read Order]

Child Welfare Committees cannot direct police to register FIRs, rules Allahabad High Court, holding their powers are limited to children needing care and protection.

03 November, 2025 04:29 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email